Non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis in children, why not? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 5.8 1区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE World Journal of Emergency Surgery Pub Date : 2025-03-25 DOI:10.1186/s13017-025-00584-9
Francesco Brucchi, Claudia Filisetti, Ester Luconi, Paola Fugazzola, Dario Cattaneo, Luca Ansaloni, Gianvincenzo Zuccotti, Simona Ferraro, Piergiorgio Danelli, Gloria Pelizzo
{"title":"Non-operative management of uncomplicated appendicitis in children, why not? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Francesco Brucchi, Claudia Filisetti, Ester Luconi, Paola Fugazzola, Dario Cattaneo, Luca Ansaloni, Gianvincenzo Zuccotti, Simona Ferraro, Piergiorgio Danelli, Gloria Pelizzo","doi":"10.1186/s13017-025-00584-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to provide a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing non-operative management (NOM) and operative management (OM) in a pediatric population with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to June 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, excluding studies involving adult patients and/or participants with complicated appendicitis. The variables considered were treatment complications, treatment efficacy during index admission and one-year follow-up, length of hospital stay (LOS), quality of life, and presence of appendicoliths. Three RCTs involving 269 participants (134 antibiotics/135 appendectomy) were included. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatments in terms of complication risk (combined RD = − 0.03; 95% CI − 0.11; 0.06, p = 0.54), even including complications related to NOM failure. The risk of complication-free treatment success rate in the antibiotic group is lower than in the surgery group (combined RD = − 0.05; 95% CI − 0.13; − 0.04; p = 0.29). In patients without appendicolith, the combined risk difference of treatment success between NOM and OM was not statistically significant − 0.01 (IC − 0.17; 0.16; p value: 0.93). There is no statistical difference in terms of efficacy at 1 year, between NOM and OM (combined RD = − 0.06; 95% CI − 0.21; 0.09), p = 0.44). The LOS in the NOM group is significantly longer than in the OM group (difference of median = − 19.90 h; 95% CI − 29.27; − 10.53, p < .0001). This systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence that NOM is safe and feasible for children with uncomplicated appendicitis and, in the group of patients without appendicolith, it is associated with a similar success rate to OM. However, more high-quality studies with adequate power and construction are still needed.","PeriodicalId":48867,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-025-00584-9","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to provide a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing non-operative management (NOM) and operative management (OM) in a pediatric population with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. A systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to June 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, excluding studies involving adult patients and/or participants with complicated appendicitis. The variables considered were treatment complications, treatment efficacy during index admission and one-year follow-up, length of hospital stay (LOS), quality of life, and presence of appendicoliths. Three RCTs involving 269 participants (134 antibiotics/135 appendectomy) were included. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatments in terms of complication risk (combined RD = − 0.03; 95% CI − 0.11; 0.06, p = 0.54), even including complications related to NOM failure. The risk of complication-free treatment success rate in the antibiotic group is lower than in the surgery group (combined RD = − 0.05; 95% CI − 0.13; − 0.04; p = 0.29). In patients without appendicolith, the combined risk difference of treatment success between NOM and OM was not statistically significant − 0.01 (IC − 0.17; 0.16; p value: 0.93). There is no statistical difference in terms of efficacy at 1 year, between NOM and OM (combined RD = − 0.06; 95% CI − 0.21; 0.09), p = 0.44). The LOS in the NOM group is significantly longer than in the OM group (difference of median = − 19.90 h; 95% CI − 29.27; − 10.53, p < .0001). This systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence that NOM is safe and feasible for children with uncomplicated appendicitis and, in the group of patients without appendicolith, it is associated with a similar success rate to OM. However, more high-quality studies with adequate power and construction are still needed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿童无并发症阑尾炎的非手术治疗,为什么不呢?随机对照试验的荟萃分析
本研究旨在对随机对照试验(RCT)进行荟萃分析,比较非手术治疗(NOM)和手术治疗(OM)在无并发症急性阑尾炎儿科患者中的应用。根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》(PRISMA)和《流行病学观察性研究元分析》(MOOSE)指南进行了系统性文献综述。从开始到 2024 年 6 月,我们在 MEDLINE、Embase 和 CENTRAL 中进行了全面检索。只纳入了随机对照试验(RCT),排除了涉及成年患者和/或患有复杂性阑尾炎的参与者的研究。研究考虑的变量包括治疗并发症、指标入院和一年随访期间的治疗效果、住院时间(LOS)、生活质量以及是否存在阑尾结石。共纳入了三项研究,涉及 269 名参与者(134 名抗生素患者/135 名阑尾切除术患者)。两种治疗方法在并发症风险方面没有统计学意义上的显著差异(合并 RD = - 0.03; 95% CI - 0.11; 0.06, p = 0.54),甚至包括与 NOM 失败相关的并发症。抗生素组的无并发症治疗成功率风险低于手术组(合并 RD = - 0.05; 95% CI - 0.13; - 0.04; p = 0.29)。在无阑尾结石的患者中,NOM 和 OM 治疗成功率的综合风险差异无统计学意义-0.01(IC - 0.17; 0.16; p 值:0.93)。就 1 年疗效而言,NOM 和 OM 没有统计学差异(合并 RD = - 0.06;95% CI - 0.21;0.09),P = 0.44)。NOM 组的 LOS 明显长于 OM 组(中位数差异 = - 19.90 h;95% CI - 29.27; - 10.53,p < .0001)。本系统综述和荟萃分析提供的证据表明,NOM 对无并发症阑尾炎患儿是安全可行的,而且在无阑尾结石的患者组中,其成功率与 OM 相似。不过,仍需进行更多高质量、有足够力量和结构的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Emergency Surgery
World Journal of Emergency Surgery EMERGENCY MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: The World Journal of Emergency Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal covering all facets of clinical and basic research in traumatic and non-traumatic emergency surgery and related fields. Topics include emergency surgery, acute care surgery, trauma surgery, intensive care, trauma management, and resuscitation, among others.
期刊最新文献
Dogma, data, and decision-making: a history of treatment for small-bowel obstruction. Re: Small versus large bore chest tube in traumatic hemothorax, hemopneumothorax, and pneumothorax-external validity, endpoint heterogeneity, and trial sequential analysis assumptions : Author. Acute cholecystitis: a new technique to use carefully. Risk of delayed displacement and biomechanical analysis of unstable rib fractures postsurgical. Severely displaced rib fractures are independently associated with reduced pulmonary function at 3 months.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1